Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology

By Michael F. Bird

Adoptionism—the idea that Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as a human figure who was adopted as God's son at his baptism or resurrection—has been commonly accepted in much recent scholarship as the earliest explanation of Jesus's divine status. In this book Michael Bird draws that view into question with a thorough examination of pre-Pauline materials, the Gospel of Mark, and patristic sources.

Engaging critically with Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, and other scholars, Bird demonstrates that a full-fledged adoptionist Christology did not emerge until the late second century. As he delves into passages often used to support the idea of an early adoptionist Christology, including Romans 1:3–4 and portions of the speeches in Acts, Bird persuasively argues that early Christology was in fact incarnational, not adoptionist. He concludes by surveying and critiquing notable examples of adoptionism in modern theology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Jul 13, 2017
• ISBN: 9781467447898

Michael F. Bird

Michael F. Bird is Deputy Principal and Lecturer in New Testament at Ridley College,?Australia. He is the author of numerous scholarly and popular books on the New Testament and theology, including, with N. T. Wright, The New Testament in Its World (2019).

Book preview

Jesus the Eternal Son

Answering Adoptionist Christology

Michael F. Bird

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505

www.eerdmans.com

© 2017 Michael F. Bird

All rights reserved

Published 2017

26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 171 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ISBN 978-0-8028-7506-8

eISBN 978-1-4674-4789-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Bird, Michael F., author.

Title: Jesus the eternal son : answering adoptionist Christology / Michael F. Bird.

Description: Grand Rapids : Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017010013 | ISBN 9780802875068 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Jesus Christ—Person and offices. | Jesus Christ—Divinity. | Adoptionism.

Classification: LCC BT203 .B536 2017 | DDC 232/.8—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017010013

For the three Craigs

Craig Evans

Craig Keener

Craig Blomberg

Table of Contents

FOREWORD

PREFACE

ABBREVIATIONS

1.Christology and Christian Origins

The Birth of Christology

Adoptionism

The Goal of this Book

2.Appointed the Son of God by Resurrection from the Dead

The Son of God in Power: Romans 1:3–4

This Jesus Made Lord and Messiah: Acts 2:36 (with 5:31 and 13:33)

Conclusion

3.The Gospel of Mark, Monotheism, and Deification

Debates about Markan Christology

Exalted Heroes and Deified Emperors in the Greco-Roman World

Monotheism and Divinized Humans

Conclusion

4.The Gospel of Mark and the Son of God

The Markan Baptismal Scene

Mark’s Divine Christology

Parallels and Markan Christology

Conclusion

5.How Jesus Got Adopted in the Second Century

The Shepherd and His Two Sons

The Ebionites: Poor Man’s Christology

Theodotus of Byzantium: Jesus Finally Gets Adopted

Conclusion

6.Adoptionism: Then and Now

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Foreword

For some time now, early Christology has been the subject of intense and lively debate. The result has been important and fresh research. What did the earliest Christians really think about Jesus? is a question on the minds of many people. Did early believers in Christ really worship him as a divine figure? Or did they think of Jesus as a merely human figure whom God had exalted to a position of great eminence? Was the earliest Christology to which we have access already very high, as the scholarly trend known as early high Christology has argued? A wide range of scholars now think so; Michael Bird is prominent among them. However, many scholars still defend an older model of the evolution of Christology from what has often been called an adoptionist view toward an understanding of Jesus as the divine Son of God incarnate, which was perhaps only reached toward the end of the New Testament period, in the Gospel of John. There have been important recent challenges to early high Christology, some of which offer relatively new suggestions about the ideas available in the context of early Christianity that could have provided a model for Christian interpretation of Jesus. Bird’s book engages with some of those ideas, especially with the ones about the deification of Roman emperors and other prominent human beings. Such proposals build on a long scholarly tradition of reading certain key New Testament texts as evidence for an early view of Jesus as a man whom God adopted as his son, whether at his resurrection or at his baptism.

This book is very welcome because, surprisingly, the idea of divine sonship has not received the attention it deserves in the discussion of early high Christology. Yet it has a central role in the New Testament as a whole. It embodies the sense that Jesus did not come to be divine but came from God in the first place. It is the key notion that ties together his pre-existence, his earthly life, and his exaltation in continuity. It is the way that early Christians came to be able to think of Jesus’s relationship to God his Father as an inner divine reality. It functions both exclusively (designating Jesus’s unique relation to his Father) and also inclusively, as the relationship to God that Jesus enables believers to share. As such, it belongs to both a Christological and a soteriological category.

So did it all start with the view that divine sonship was a status that the man Jesus gained by merit and divine appointment? Bird—although he allows for variation and gradually clearer definition in early Christology—finds that there is no evidence at all for adoptionism in the early period. He tackles the texts that have so often been read in an adoptionist way and shows, I think convincingly, that this cannot plausibly be the original meaning. In his search for the origins of adoptionism, Bird moves into the second century and finds what he is looking for only at the very end of that century. Far from being considered the earliest Christology, adoptionism now appears to be actually a very late divergence from the main current of Christian thinking on the subject. Instead of being a view that preceded any ontological thinking about Jesus’s relation to God, it turns out to be a view designed to protect an ontology of divine nature that could not accommodate incarnation within it. Many New Testament scholars will likely be surprised by this conclusion, but many patristic scholars, I suspect, will not.

I am happy to commend this learned, cogent, and significant book.

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

Preface

This volume is the result of preparation for a public dialogue about the divinity of Jesus held at the Greer-Heard Point-Counter-Point forum at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in February 2016. Participants included Bart Ehrman, Jennifer Knust, Dale Martin, Larry Hurtado, Simon Gathercole, and me.

As I began preparing my talk on Jesus and adoptionism, it soon became apparent to me that a lot of what was being said about the origins of christological adoptionism was incorrect. What is more, in response to all this, it soon became clear that I had more to communicate than I had time to speak. What I wrote for the Greer-Heard debate was too substantial for a lecture or even for a journal article on the subject and more suited in length for a short, sharp, and provocative volume on the topic. So here we are!

I first gained interest in the topic of adoptionism after noticing that many scholars simply assume rather than argue the point that the earliest Christology of the primitive church was adoptionistic. The only evidence mustered is more often than not a footnote to the same cohort of scholars, usually John Knox and James D. G. Dunn, but without ever critically appraising their theses. My own suspicion was that, to quote George Gershwin, it ain’t necessarily so. I would not for a moment deny the diversity of portraits of Jesus that emerged in the early church, some emphasizing his humanity. However, in my reading of the sources a mature adoptionism is a second-century phenomenon. The first real and tangible advocates were the Theodotians.

I would like to thank Bob Stewart for inviting me again to the Greer-Heard forum. I would also like to thank my fellow participants in the discussion and those who made the event possible. The Nawleans hospitality and collegiality was outstanding! I love being able to say that I have had blackened crawfish from down on the bayou!

Several friends read over parts of the manuscript and offered comments for which I am most grateful. Joshua Jipp, once the apprentice now the master, was great with corrections, affirmations, and suggestions. So too did Matthew Bates have a close read of the manuscript and point out to me certain ways to enhance it. Con Campbell answered a hairy Greek question for me. My colleague Scott Harrower made a few learned comments too. Christoph Heilig helped track down a few German works that were inaccessible to me. Michael Peppard provided some crucial feedback in making sure I represented his view correctly. He also pushed back on several vital details. An anonymous reviewer supplied by Eerdmans made several pointed suggestions as to how to improve the quality of the argumentation and readability of the book, for which I am most grateful. Also, the Ridley librarians Ruth Millard and Alison Foster ordered several volumes that I needed to read in order to complete the book. Thanks also go to John Schoer for ably compiling the indexes.

This volume is dedicated to three guys called Craig, scholars whose work on Jesus and the Gospels has taught me much and inspired me to excellence in my own writing. First, I read Craig Blomberg’s textbooks on Jesus and the Gospels and Interpreting the Parables back in theological college. I then had the honor of meeting Blomberg in person when he came to lecture at Moore Theological College in Sydney back in 2004. Since then I have regularly enjoyed catching up with Blomberg at conferences. I have always felt like he was a kindred spirit, and his academic work still teaches me much. Second, it has been great collaborating with Craig Evans and getting to know him better now that we are colleagues at Houston Baptist University, where I am an adjunct research professor. Evans is a very personable scholar, and I continue to benefit from his writings. They set the gold standard for evangelical scholarship on the Gospels. Third, Craig Keener’s reputation precedes him. Like most seminary students since the 1990s, I have long benefited from Keener’s volumes, especially his massive commentaries. I have been in awe of his encyclopedic grasp of first-century sources. I first met Keener while browsing over his Matthew commentary at the SBL book stalls. Since then I have had the privilege of personal friendship and professional collaboration with him, and even the pleasure of hosting him in Australia. In sum, anyone wanting to learn what careful and disciplined study of the Gospels looks like in practice really should consult this Craig’s List of venerable scholars. If I were to receive a slight portion of their genius, I know I would be a much better teacher and researcher. May peace and grace be theirs in abundance!

Abbreviations

CHAPTER 1

Christology and Christian Origins

The Birth of Christology

It is very difficult to provide a comprehensive description of how early Christian beliefs about Jesus emerged in a way that adequately summarizes the many contexts, texts, artifacts, and complexities that were formative for those Christian beliefs.¹ At the risk of simplification, I would suggest that early Christologies emerged as the attempt to express, in belief and devotion, what the earliest Christ-believers thought God had revealed in the life, passion, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus of Nazareth. In addition, there was a palpable need to make sense of what they had experienced of Jesus in their own communal and interior religious life. Reflection on Jesus’s prophetic career and the events of the first Easter—in addition to practices like prayer, worship, healing, visionary experiences, and charismatic phenomena—fostered a set of shared convictions about Jesus among adherents of the primitive churches. Core to those convictions was not only that Jesus was God’s agent, but that Jesus was to be identified with God and with God’s activities in the world—at least in some sense.² Thus, early Christologies were driven by a mixture of ideational factors (beliefs, propositions, and cognitive frameworks) and experiential events (rituals, devotional practices, and sensations of divine presence and power). This led to the creations of narratives and propositions that attempted to answer a double-sided question: (1) Who is Jesus? and (2) Who is God in light of the memory of Jesus and the continuing experience of Jesus? This is where Christology began.

On the question of Jesus’s identity, a simple glance through the New Testament shows that Jesus was described in many ways: as a miracle-working prophet, a new Davidic Messiah, the mysterious Son of Man, the pre-existent Son of God, a priestly agent with divine power, a heavenly figure with angelic qualities, the personification of divine wisdom, God’s messianic κύριος, and the divine Logos made flesh. Scholars often mistakenly assume that these beliefs were mutually exclusive and that one view could only be held by one community at any one time. It is more likely, however, that assertions about Jesus’s identity swirled around early Christian networks, no doubt competing for consensus.³ These ideas converged and coalesced into a constellation of common convictions about Christ among the proto-orthodox churches of the second century.⁴

The raw materials for proto-orthodoxy and, indeed, later Nicene Orthodoxy reside in the teachers—and their communities—who wrote the documents that formed the New Testament. While christological claims do not appear to have been the most contested matters of first-century churches, we find indications already in the New Testament that certain aspects of Jesus’s person and work were regarded as intrinsic and defining for certain communities.⁵ That is most likely because tinkering with Jesus meant tinkering with the type of salvation he provided, which in turn undermined a particular expression of group identity. Thus, Who is Jesus? is important because it is directly connected to What has God done for us through Jesus? and Who are we? What one thinks of Jesus will determine what one has received from him and who his followers should understand themselves to be in the divine plan. There is little wonder that Jesus’s identity became a central, albeit flexible, fixture of the early church. It explains why we detect in the first generations of the church a number of repeated titles for Jesus being used—such as Messiah, Lord, Savior, Son of Man, and Son of God—within a common kerygmatic narrative centered upon his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and future return. Early narrations of the story of Jesus described it as a divinely orchestrated sequence that results in salvation, a salvation in which Jesus played, continues to play, and will yet play, a key role. In light of this, it is clear that conceptions of Jesus’s identity were not determined by abstract speculations, but by his specific role in the deliverance wrought by God and its associated benefits for his followers. We can affirm that among many early Christ-believers there was broad and near-immediate unity on two key christological ideas: (1) identification of Jesus with the God of Israel (in a very intense albeit ambiguous sense); and (2) identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the risen and exalted Lord Jesus Christ (fostering a unity between Jesus’s earthly career and his exalted status). These ideas, I submit, were the germinal seeds of christological orthodoxy.⁶

It was of course not all smooth sailing from Nazareth to Nicea. Complicating factors included varied presentations of Jesus’s person in light of diverse interpretations of Israel’s Scriptures, the struggle of the Judean and trans-Jordan churches to find legitimation for their messianic faith within common Judaism (pre-70 CE), and then antagonism with proto-rabbinic Judaism (post-70 CE). In addition, by the middle of the first century we already see the first phase of an extended encounter with Hellenism and its philosophies, the influence of Jewish and Greco-Roman categories for divine agents, and the adaptation of the Jesus story to various Hellenistic literary genres. Then follows the multiplication and dissemination of Christian writings, ranging from other Gospels to anti-heretical tracts, and an increasing diversification of the churches geographically, linguistically, and theologically. Even imperial politics in the third and fourth centuries shaped christological debates. All of this fashioned the christological language and devotional patterns of the early church.

Resultantly, we cannot speak of a single monolithic Christology of the early church, but neither can we settle for postulating an endless variety of Christologies that were all mutually exclusive and proportionately distributed across the early church, each with equal claims to validity. Therefore, rather than refer to a single and uniform early Christology, I prefer to speak of early christologizing, with various expressions of Jesus’s identity gradually clustering together, becoming fused through the sharing of texts, the development of a common lexicon, shared hermeneutical strategies, and common rituals. The upshot was that a cohesive mode of discourse and mutually recognized patterns of worship gradually emerged. Concurrently, seemingly incongruent beliefs and practices began to be pushed to the margins when they did not meet with consensus or find reciprocation in the burgeoning church communities.

These incongruent Christologies—later labeled as heresies—were regarded as invalid portrayals of Jesus. The Jesus described by a growing collection of fringe groups either could not be squared with existing beliefs or else was simply unrecognizable to others. These newly spawned Christologies often ranked high in contextualization but seemingly lacked antiquity and consensus. Often these heresies pursued genuinely noble ends, such as constructing a theodicy while attempting an integration of Christian theism with platonic cosmogony (gnosticism), maintaining a high Christology